Originally Posted by
Popcorn
I think there's two different types of Socionics users. Some people want hierarachies and systems and approaches and VI and all of that stuff to, I guess, predict types or infer types without getting to know someone, or maybe before getting to know someone. I don't really like that because it's very similar to statistics, in that you will have to accept a percentage of inaccuracy and if any parts of Socionics are poorly understood or people are masking themselves for whatever reason, then the error becomes amplified in your conclusions and self-fulfilling in your results. But I guess that's a way of applying Socionics more proactively. Perhaps this more proactive energy makes it more a Te approach than Ti.
Then there is the other type of user. They want to better understand their interactions with other people from a Jungian or Socionical abstract framework. It's then more of a reflective tool (like going to a therapist and talking things out) to help understand people and yourself. This is what I like because there is more potential for accuracy and less subjective bias, as well as a focus on understanding yourself, since you only type and analyze based on your deeper interactions and communication conflicts/issues (and that's good for social retards like me that need more help). The subtle things that come up when you communicate with people that reflect conflicting IE values will start to show and help understand and connect Socionics together in a big picture way, rather than focusing on approaches and hierarchies and in that sense -> details rather than big picture. It's also easier to correct for errors in understanding Jungian elements because you are always working to reframe things in a way that matches your interactions and understanding from a past reflective nature, rather than trying to think of some perfect system to guide your future. You are basically forming big picture viewpoints of everything - types, personal values, Information Elements, and learning to discover and accept your own needs and wants and limitations and differences from other people. Because, truly, reality is messy and will never be perfect and you are just trying to reflect on trends and overall patterns anyway for typing. Eventually, despite that there will always be inconsistencies with life and people to some degree (Tom Clancy — 'The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense'), you will see the overarching trends, archetypes, and patterns that reflect socionics relations.
That said, I think if the understanding of Jungian functions is good, it's the IE conflicts that make type most noticeable. But I don't know, that's how I use it and it seems to work and get better over time and I'm at a point where it really makes a lot of sense now, so I'm comfortable saying all this.